Descheduling cannabis will make doing research easier, but even now there is quite a bit of work going on - you see CB1 and CB2 agonists and antagonists published quite regularly in the literature. Those synthetic cannabinoids came from somewhere after all. So perhaps I am confused by the question?

From the letter: "The pharmacokinetics/bioavailability of CBD in patients will require the validation of LC/MS/MS methodology. NIH can evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy of these formulations in small, controlled patient studies to validate their approval."

I dunno (and maybe I am completely ignorant) but for NIH to work on this stuff, needs to be legal?

I'm sure they're already involved in cannabis research. They've been funding research on the effects of the disco lifestyle on Japanese quail for several years.

"...cocaine and the sex lives of Japanese quail - this research has been funded by NIH for YEARS extending back well beyond the two years of grants that got my attention (Univ. of Kentucky, 2010, 2011 for a grand total of $356,933.14).

Isn't it odd to see the government deregulate cannabis and yet ban transfats? I guess they're more worried about our waistline than our brains.Just what we need more people walking around or driving stupid.

Deregulating cannabis is going to be driven by the prospect of enhanced tax revenues. The Bureaucrat Class even now is salivating at the prospect, especially since they've so effectively trashed the other parts of the tax base. I used to think that dumbing down the voters was the goal, but since these people all vote for the [redacted] Party anyway, I'm now more inclined to believe they think of this as a minor side benefit.

You should try and not regurgitate old rhetoric like a jaded senior, and start to consider the potential benefits of marijuana. There is no harm to brains, and no stupidity from smoking. More stupidity in having it banned for all these years to absolutely no ones benefit.

I understand the concerns about phthalates in PVC but the recent (quieter) push to remove phthalates from polypropylene seems absurd. Phthalates are used as electron donors in Gen. 4 Ziegler-Natta catalysts. Considering 1 g of catalyst can make upwards of 40,000 g of PP, there is at most 5 ppm phthalate in the final polymer. In fact, there is much less as a result of extraction and downstream processing steps. Personally, I'm comfortable eating from a yogurt container with that much residual phthalate.

But now companies are pursuing novel, non-phthalate electron donors due to pressure from REACH and similar legislation. Their toxicology profiles are unknown. While they're likely to be present at similarly marginal levels as phthalate donors in the final product, there isn't the same body of knowledge about their fate during polymerization as there is on phthalate donors. So who knows? It seems like we're just replacing the devil we know with the devil we don't.

Regardless of one's opinion about legalization of recreational marijuana, I am puzzled by the lack of concern about the effects of inhaling pyrolysed organic matter on one's lungs. In case of either tobacco or marijuana, this creates PAHs, which are obviously known to be carcinogenic.

I suppose the only recommendation would be to consume either hash brownies or THC oil, instead of smoking a joint.

The use of vaporizers is widespread in cannabis communities. Simply a device that heats plant material to a temperature hot enough to liberate volatile components (cannabinoids) without combustion, circumventing the need to worry about PAHs.

I tried hookah once and it burnt the hell out of my throat, probably because I had never been exposed to nicotine until then. The experience only cemented my resolve to not ever expose myself to nicotine.